Hi Bart, > > Hi Avri, > > Thank you for having taken the time to publish your work. The way this > series has been split into individual patches makes reviewing easy. > Additionally, the cover letter and patch descriptions are very > informative, insightful and well written. However, I'm concerned about a > key aspect of the implementation, namely relying on a device handler to > alter the meaning of a block layer request. My concern about this > approach is that at most one device handler can be associated with a > SCSI LLD. If in the future more functionality would be added to the UFS > spec and if it would be desirable to implement that functionality as a > new kernel module, it won't be possible to implement that functionality > as a new device handler. So I think that not relying on the device > handler infrastructure is more future proof because that removes the > restrictions we have to deal with when using the device handler framework. > Thanks, So should we keep perusing this direction, or leave it, and concentrate in Bean's RFC? Or maybe come up with a 3rd way?
Thanks, Avri > > Bart.
